On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 10:59 AM Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > From: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 10:00 PM > > > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 2:58 AM Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > From: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 10:42 PM > > > > > > > > Well, the ability to query the virtqueue state was proposed as > > > > another feature (Eugenio, please correct me). This should be > > > > sufficient for making virtio-net to be live migrated. > > > > > > > The device is stopped, it won't answer to this special vq config done here. > > > > This depends on the definition of the stop. Any query to the device state > > should be allowed otherwise it's meaningless for us. > > > > > Programming all of these using cfg registers doesn't scale for on-chip > > memory and for the speed. > > > > Well, they are orthogonal and what I want to say is, we should first define > > the semantics of stop and state of the virtqueue. > > > > Such a facility could be accessed by either transport specific method or admin > > virtqueue, it totally depends on the hardware architecture of the vendor. > > > I find it hard to believe that a vendor can implement a CVQ but not AQ and chose to expose tens of hundreds of registers. > But maybe, it fits some specific hw. You can have a look at the ifcvf dpdk driver as an example. But another thing that is unrelated to hardware architecture is the nesting support. Having admin virtqueue in a nesting environment looks like an overkill. Presenting a register in L1 and map it to L0's admin should be good enough. > > I like to learn the advantages of such method other than simplicity. > > We can clearly that we are shifting away from such PCI registers with SIOV, IMS and other scalable solutions. > virtio drifting in reverse direction by introducing more registers as transport. > I expect it to an optional transport like AQ. Actually, I had a proposal of using admin virtqueue as a transport, it's designed to be SIOV/IMS capable. And it's not hard to extend it with the state/stop support etc. > > > > > > > Next would be to program hundreds of statistics of the 64 VQs through a > > giant PCI config space register in some busy polling scheme. > > > > We don't need giant config space, and this method has been implemented > > by some vDPA vendors. > > > There are tens of 64-bit counters per VQs. These needs to programmed on destination side. > Programming these via registers requires exposing them on the registers. > In one of the proposals, I see them being queried via CVQ from the device. I didn't see a proposal like this. And I don't think querying general virtio state like idx with a device specific CVQ is a good design. > > Programming them via cfg registers requires large cfg space or synchronous programming until receiving ACK from it. > This means one entry at a time... > > Programming them via CVQ needs replicate and align cmd values etc on all device types. All duplicate and hard to maintain. > > > > > > > > I can clearly see how all these are inefficient for faster LM. > > > We need an efficient AQ to proceed with at minimum. > > > > I'm fine with admin virtqueue, but the stop and state are orthogonal to that. > > And using admin virtqueue for stop/state will be more natural if we use > > admin virtqueue as a transport. > Ok. > We should have defined it bit earlier that all vendors can use. :( I agree. Thanks _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
